Battlefield 4 unplayable at 200% resolution scale?

[thegeforcer]

I have been playing BF4 in single player at 1080p ultra settings + 200% resolution scale with my Geforce GTX 680 SLI but the game goes slow. The max that I can play is ultra + 150% resolution scale. I think that the cause is my GTX 680 SLI having only 2GB Vram.
1) Are you able to play it smoothly at 200% resolution scale with Titan/GTX 780/AMD 7990/AMD 290x or other graphics cards having 4GB or 6GB Vram?
2) Do you have the flickering issue in open spaces? it is really annoying and I still haven't found the solution for it.

 

[MBrown]

I playing around with 130 rs. I am using this with All High settings except for Ultra textures no MSAA and High FXAA. Its looking good and its sometimes drops down to 55fps in some situations.

 

[goobernoodles]

I'm curious to see how the top of the line setups handle supersampling as well. It has a huuuuuuuuuge impact on image quality.

I cranked all settings to max including resolution scale during the beta just to see. I barely was able to navigate out of the menu - hahaha. I was probably getting 0.25 FPS and that's being generous. I've got a GTX480, 2500k @ 4.5 and 8gb of RAM. Definitely need a new video card.

 

[FredNotFound404]

That scale is just downsampling with another name, so yeah it will bottleneck memory and the GPU itself since it creates a bigger image, when I did it at 1600p in my GTX 670 I was getting 3-5FPS, I found the perfect spot to be 120 for me with everything on low, gave me a more sharp image, even tho graphics look horrible

 

[Grooveriding]

If you can't run it at 200%, it's not worth bothering with it imo. It's supersampling. 200%=2xSSAA

 

[MBrown]

If you can't run it at 200%, it's not worth bothering with it imo. It's supersampling. 200%=2xSSAA

I can see a difference with 120%. I had mine at 130% but was to often dropping to 52 -55 FPS so I bumped it down to 120%.

 

[tential]

Seems like you're at a memory bottleneck. 3GB memory (VC card memory) was the recommended I think.

I think the sweet spot price to performance ratio would be a R9 290x or a 7950 (If you can pick it up cheap) in crossfire.

This was the EXACT issue I had when Nvidia released 2GB GTX 7 series cards. It was a direct laugh in the consumers face. Cards were designed to beat current benchmarks knowing full well that within a couple of months games would be out that would require much more than 2GB of VC Ram. But I blame consumers for purchasing these cards as well when AMD had 3GB VCs out at similar performance levels and the fact that people just decided to ignore even the reviews they were reading which stated 2GB VC ram was quite low.

 

[BrightCandle]

200% resolution scaling should be equivalent to SSAA 4x I think. A doubling in horizontal or vertical resolution results in 4x as many pixels. At least I think that is how its meant to work as that was how it worked in Arma 2 and now in Arma 3. 150% should be SSAA 2x equivalent.

Anyway you can somewhat test for VRAM problems if you want to with GPU-Z. Just run the sensors in the background, go play the game and then check the GPU usage and the GPU vram usage. If its going above the 2GB on your card or its close (without 50-100MB) then there is a decent chance you are VRAM limited, otherwise its just a performance problem.

 

[Wardawg1001]

I made the mistake of trying to turn the resolution scale up to 200% during the beta. I have a single GTX680 with 4GB GDDR5. With everything on ultra and resolution scale at 100% the game looks really good and runs perfectly. Not knowing exactly what the resolution scale really was, I put it up to 200% and my FPS, even in menus, dropped down to the 10-20 range. I'm not sure where the sweet spot would have been, it was nearing the end of the beta and I was much more interested in playing the game than fiddling with graphics settings, so I just dropped it back to 100% and went on with my life.

 

[alcoholbob]

200% is basically running at 4K resolution lol. It's unplayable on a OC'ed Titan, I can run about 120 or 130 at 1080p with 4x MSAA and keep above 30fps 99% of the time. At 150 sometimes I'll drop in the 20s.

 

[schneiderguy]

200% resolution scaling should be equivalent to SSAA 4x I think. A doubling in horizontal or vertical resolution results in 4x as many pixels. At least I think that is how its meant to work as that was how it worked in Arma 2 and now in Arma 3. 150% should be SSAA 2x equivalent.

1.41% should be SSAA 2x equivalent. Increasing both horizontal and vertical by 50% gives you 2.25x equivalent.

I'm not sure if nVidia still exposes SSAA through their driver panel. But their 2x SSAA modes were always labeled as either 2x1 or 1x2, if I recall correctly. So you'd get either a doubling of horizontal or vertical pixels. The 4x SSAA mode was doubling of both.

 

[videogames101]

Wait people are actually using that setting for SSAA? I thought most people would be downscaling for higher performance haha.

Seriously, if you set 200% at 1080p with ultra quality setting you cannot expect decent performance, unless you have something truly monstrous. (read: 2x 290x, 2x 780/Titan)

 

[RUN4Y0URL1F3]

Quick question: which option is more demanding?

- 4K with no AA
- 1080p with Resolution Scale 200%

Please explain the reasoning behind your answer.

 

[Anubis]

whats the benefit to running at a higher resoloution scale?

 

[AnMig]

whats the benefit to running at a higher resolution scale?

Same question, I currently run the game at 1440p which is the default resolution of my monitor.

are people running the game 1080p then upping the scale to match their higher resolution screens.

I always thought running default resolution of your monitor was the way to go.

 

[deaner]

I play with a 7990 - 1080p resolution scale at 150% all ULTRA settings... 80+FPS. Will dip at times, but damn its a pleasure to look at and play.

EDIT: haven't tried 200% yet, have been working my way up -

 

[RUN4Y0URL1F3]

whats the benefit to running at a higher resoloution scale?

The higher it's set, the more it will reduce AA.

 

[Gloomy]

I always thought running default resolution of your monitor was the way to go.

You can set your video card to render at a much higher resolution internally. This makes the video card sample everything more times, the increase in samples resolves a higher quality, more accurate representation of the scene.

That's how AA works. What the "resolution scale" slider does, essentially, is set your video card to run AA on the full scene, not just on edges. As you can see from everyone's performance, this is obviously extremely demanding. But it generates an extremely good picture that is less fuzzy than "optimized" AA methods (which are essentially shortcuts to try to approximate what the resolution scale slider does).

What people are doing is not running at 1080p and then upscaling up to their monitor. They're rendering above 1080p and scaling down.

1920x1080 + 200% scale = 3840×2160

Note: If I have said something incorrect, feel free to correct me.

 

[AnMig]

You can set your video card to render at a much higher resolution internally. This makes the video card sample everything more times, the increase in samples resolves a higher quality, more accurate representation of the scene.

That's how AA works. What the "resolution scale" slider does, essentially, is set your video card to run AA on the full scene, not just on edges. As you can see from everyone's performance, this is obviously extremely demanding. But it generates an extremely good picture that is less fuzzy than "optimized" AA methods (which are essentially shortcuts to try to approximate what the resolution scale slider does).

What people are doing is not running at 1080p and then upscaling up to their monitor. They're rendering above 1080p and scaling down.

1920x1080 + 200% scale = 3840×2160

Note: If I have said something incorrect, feel free to correct me.

So the video card is putting an output 3840x2160 or just a sharper clearer 1080p?

I am assuming the target video output resolution ideally should match your default monitor resolution for the best possible picture.

I am just wondering if I should mess around with this since by peoples responses that image clarity gained is quite significant.

I have a Catleap 1440p montior with dual 7970 in crossfire I play on mostly ultra setting and with V sync on usually maintain 60fps in multiplayer.

 

[Anubis]

The higher it's set, the more it will reduce AA.

so you take a massive preformance hit for what id call little to to benefit?
seems odd to me

 

[RUN4Y0URL1F3]

so you take a massive preformance hit for what id call little to to benefit?
seems odd to me

I think the benefit is huge. Image quality is dramatically improved.

 

[RUN4Y0URL1F3]

Quick question: which option is more demanding?

- 4K with no AA
- 1080p with Resolution Scale 200%

Please explain the reasoning behind your answer.

Did anyone have the time to look at this question?

 

[deaner]

I think the benefit is huge. Image quality is dramatically improved.

2nd the notion... Image Quality is amazing.

 

[(sic)Klown12]

2nd the notion... Image Quality is amazing.

Especially since it works great on specular aliasing, as MSAA and FXAA tend to fall flat on their face in that aspect.

 

[blackened23]

Resolution scaling is downsampling or OGSSAA. Of course it isn't playable at 200%. I wouldn't expect it to be playable at 125%.

This is one of those settings that will never be maxed out, maybe in 2 years or something. OGSSAA (which is what resolution scaling is) is incredibly GPU intensive. Don't expect to use this setting with no performance hit. Most people should not use resolution scale at all - again, INCREDIBLY GPU intensive.